Brace yourself -- this discussion is doomed to get far, far worse once it
gets *off* the list and into news.groups. If we can come to some consensus
on the list, we will likely be able to present a better Request For
Discussion (RFD): one that outlines the possibilities we've considered and
makes a strong recommendation for the list's preference. That may not be
possible, but if we can get it there, we're less likely to get some pack of
news.groups wackos making the decision for us. Usenet group creation isn't
about moderators making decisions, it's about mob mentality; so let's all
mob together, lest we be mobbed separately.
I do agree with Anthony that many of the positions have been outlined and
discussed. Shall we start summing up our reactions to the proposals?
Here's my take:
* comp.infosystems[.www].vrml -- I definitely agree with the "no, it's not
an infosystem" crowd, and I'm surprised by the number of people who like
this one. If we want this in the infosystems hierarchy, we should refer to
some infosystem, not a language: 'comp.infosystems.www.vr'?
'comp.infosystems.www.3d'? These seem contrived.
* comp.graphics.vrml -- this looks like a departure from other
comp.graphics groups, which seem bunched around 'methods' (animation,
raytracing) and 'packages' (3dstudio, gnuplot). Is there a good argument
for similarity between vrml and other comp.graphics groups?
* comp.vrml -- um, let's not go overboard. 'www' doesn't get a
second-level hierarchy. It's easy to believe that one's own causes are of
the greatest importance, but do take a step back.
* comp.lang.vrml -- this was my favorite, although it seems to have faded
to the background. Maybe I'm just fixating on the existence of
'comp.lang.postscript', which seems like something of a cousin -- opinions?
I like this one since it categorizes the topic -- a language -- rather
than related topics (i.e., networking, graphics). Admittedly, this one may
not "scale well."
Marc Hedlund <[email protected]>